Saturday, August 11

More ALTERED EMAIL? Blowing Up the Freeh Fiction

by Barry Bozeman - aurabass AT yahoo Dot Com

We want to explore another avenue concerning the emails used in the factFREEH Fiction. This information needs forensic analysis from a qualified computer lab like the FBI's digital forensics and we are calling for the Feds to step in and do that analysis. If this email has been tampered with the State Government is too conflicted to do a competent and fair analysis since the Attorney General Linda Kelly has proven herself untrustworthy with her prosecution of Curley and Schultz and her blatant Lie in the Grand Jury Presentment.
This is Exhibit 2A - the very first Exhibit in the Freeh Report used to establish that Joe Paterno knew about the 1998 investigation and lied to the Grand Jury 13 years after the fact when he failed to recall any "additional allegations of criminal behavior" on the part of Jerry Sandusky

This is Exhibit 2A in the Freeh Report so you can go to this LINK and down to the Exhibits to prove this for yourself not using my images of the emails.

When you look at this email and use control + on your keyboard to blow it up you will see the large amounts of grey ghost like pixelation. Was this forged to add the Re: Joe Paterno subject line?
This is the email captioned Re Joe Paterno - Compare the grey pixelation above with the next email in the Exhibits. 2B below:

This email has no such pixelation around the text with the exception of the PERIOD following  "Good Tom. Thanks for the update and I agree that we want to resolve this quickly ". PERIOD

This email is also from Gary Schultz's computer from Gary Schultz to Tom Harmon with a further email to Tim Curley at the bottom. So this is not about different computers or different email programs.

THIS EMAIL IS CAPTIONED RE: Jerry but Freeh says "coach (in these emails) is presumed to be Joe"

Blown up it looks like This
Note how clear the text appears with the sole exception of the final PERIOD at the very end of "quickly"
I agree that we want to resolve quickly. period - That isn't like the grammar used by Schultz and begs the question Was there something added to this sentence that was eliminated in order to make it appear Schultz was seeking a quick resolution when he was not? 

Could Schultz have written  "we want to resolve quickly only if the investigation is complete and in the best interest of the children of The Second Mile." "We don't want to leave any loose ends or put any child at risk." ?

Note how only the faintest pixelation occurs in the rest of the word - the jagged edges of diagonals and curves in the q u c k and y. The single dot of the period is clearly different.  

Attorney General Kelly has been shown to have perpetrated a lie with her Grand Jury Presentment and Press Conference: So it is imperative this question be resolved by a Federal Investigator not subject to pressure from Kelly's office in Pennsylvania. 

I just got off the phone with a former investigator for a Federal Agency who had a great deal of experience with computer documents back in 2000 and before. He believes these emails need to be put through a thorough analysis at the FBI's digital fraud lab where they could definitely determine if there is tampering as appears to him to be the case. 

I have informed the investigators for Farrell and Roberto about our findings so anyone who is reading this should spread it around until someone in the local Harrisburg/State College media picks it up and takes it national - Sara Ganim are you there? If nothing else this provides enough information to launch and investigation of these emails and it cannot be done by Linda Kelly if you remember this:

The KEY thing to remember here is the Grand Jury Presentment on Nov 7th.and the Victim 2 section that contained a malicious bald faced LIE BY LINDA KELLY 

An interesting point from my source. Some seem to be focusing on the clock inconsistencies in these emails and theorizing how one person's computer clock may have been off. To me this is not the issue. Exhibit 2b includes Joe Paterno's name in the RE: section when it appears out of place and in inconsistent font. The emails may have been edited with photo shop. To me this is the key issue to focus on. We know Freeh's crew laid the report out in a manner to stick it to the athletic department. The question is whether the emails once they were printed off the University server were doctored.
In anycase I cannot see why the University with their new proclaimed policy of transparency do not just release the original emails and employ a tech team to look at the emails in question and determine if they have been accessed or changed since 1998. After all these emails have been placed  in the public domain.  The clock issue is a valid issue. I am amused that the best defense people can come up with to explain the inconsistencies is to speculate that someone's computer clock must have been off. That is not really solid evidence to base 4 years of sanctions on.

On March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant who was then 28 years old entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building on the University Park Campus on a Friday night before the beginning of Spring Break. The graduate assistant , who was familiar with Sandusky, was going to put some newly purchased sneakers in his locker and get some recording tape to watch. It was about 9:30pm. As the graduate assistant entered the locker room doors, he was surprised to find the lights and showers on. He then heard rhythmic slapping sounds. He believed the sounds to be those of sexual activity. As the graduate assistant put the sneakers in his locker, he looked into the showers. He saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky. The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed both victim 2 and Sandusky saw him. He left immediately, distraught.

The Victim 2 section goes on to say Mike told Joe and then Tim and Gary exactly that: "He SAW a naked boy....... being subjected to anal intercourse"

This is what the Media jumped on the following day. Headlines were Assistant PSU Coach Sees Boy Being Sodomized - Tells Coach and Administrators Who Ignore It.

That is the story that stuck in the minds of millions of American's. Joe Paterno heard about a kid being raped in the showers at his locker room and did nothing about it.   OF course there was outrage and the Media Tsunami basically washed away any chance of reason or consideration

This image of Sandusky along with Curley and Schultz and the Victim 2 section of the Presentment sealed PSU's fate from the start - AND IT WAS A LIE.Attorney General Linda Kelly knew full well exactly what she was doing  She had Sandusky's picture on an easel alongside Tim Curley and Gary Schultz
 Attorney general, police discuss Jerry Sandusky sex-crimes case

OF course we now know that McQueary did not see a sexual assault and said no such thing to Joe Paterno. At most he used the words "a sexual nature" and"fondling" in some context during a 10 minute meeting describing a 45 second locker room visit.  
Obviously saying
"Hey coach I'm not sure what I saw with those 2 second glances but it could have be something of a sexual nature - maybe fondling or something like that"
in 4 seconds of a 10 minute talk is far different from saying
"Coach I saw Jerry sodomizing a young boy in a brutal sexual assault. It was anal intercourse"
The news stories would have been far different and far more accurate but Kelly was looking for sensationalism and boy did she get it at great cost to PSU and Joe Paterno.
So attorney General Kelly charged Sandusky with the Felony Count of Deviate Sexual Intercourse based on her presentment and her claim of McQueary's testimony.
But the Jury heard Dr. Dranov testify and say MIke was asked 3 times that night "Did you see a sex act"? and 3 times Mike answered "NO I heard it". referring to the 3 slapping sounds he thought were 2 adults going at it in the showers.

Then the Sandusky Jury voted NOT GUILTY on the charge of DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE proving that Linda Kelly's presentment was a LIE. We have yet to see the media retract or amend their attacks on Joe and PSU after learning the Presentment was phony and prejudicial.


Please pass this on to everyone and lets get these emails into the hands of Federal investigators 
Barry Bozeman 



  1. There is a second doctored period after the sentence "we won't know anything before then(.)" in that same email.
    Also, I think it would help your case if you showed how ever other period and punctuation mark is crystal clear and has no pixel blur except the two obviously doctored ones.

    1. Also I noticed that the doctored "." after the word "then" is only doctored in that email and is consistent in other copies of the email.

      My theory, these guys know how to doctor documents in a way that makes it look like they're not doctored.

  2. Hello,

    I would like to point out a factual error. The gray pixelation you see is what is called a JPEG artifact, an imperfection that can show up when any image is saved as a JPEG (.jpg) image -- as a lot of scanners will do. This is why you also see this fuzz on the images of the handwritten documents in the report. Is the handwriting Photoshopped? I doubt it. Photoshop can produce a PERFECT forgery of an e-mail. ANY image of an e-mail has the possibility of being forged, not just those with JPEG artifacts. Artifacts aren't evidence for, and lack of artifacts aren't evidence against. I think it would help your case to focus on other evidence.

    1. May I ask then, why every other period in that email is not fuzzy?

      It would seem if your theory is true, that there would random fuzzy periods all over the various exhibits.

    2. Jennifer,
      Why would Freeh's group save e-mails to jpeg or any other format? What would be the point?

      Allegedly, Freeh's group was pulling "raw" data files from the servers and analyzing it. I don't understand why they would save the e-mail in jpeg, as opposed to a .rft or .doc format.

      Regarding handwritten notes, why are parts of the notes fuzzy and other parts clear?

      Thanks in advance.

  3. Is it just me or is there an odd slope to some of the words/sentences?

  4. I am big supporter of PS and Coach Paterno, but your conspiracy theory is hard to support. I agree with Jennifer and follow the biased-one-sided report fact, not a major conspiracy theory.

    1. The conspiracy theory belongs to Freeh and his cover up hoax

      not to us - we are asking serious questions why do these emails look like this.

  5. Not a big fan of trusting the Feds to arbitrate/investigate this. Are you aware of the allegations that the FBI altered and manufactured evidence in 10's of thousands of criminal cases? An investigation that Director Louis Freeh, OF ALL PEOPLE, has been accused of quashing?

  6. J.Cribari,

    The folks at SMSSS are not proposing any "Conspiracy Theory". I follow this site b/c they are actually conducting a legitimate and critical investigative review of the Freeh report. Ray is an integillence report analyst and Barry is an accomplished legal analyst.

    I am a tennant of Ockham's Razor. And based simply an a review of the facts in the Freeh report, there are so many "Assumptions" as to violate Ockham's Razor. I for one, welcome the scrutiny of Freeh's report, which is based on flimsy evidence at best and a complete lack of common sense.



  8. Although I believe that Joe Pa never would have let anybody get away with abusing a child of any age, I have one problem with the idea that Coach is Sandusky. And I know that Paterno is "Joe" and Sandusky likes to be referred to as "Coach". The question is-why would he call Curley and ask about the investigation as early as May 13, 1998? There is no indication that anybody notified him of the investigation until maybe June 1st when DPW interviewed him. The police report indicates that the officer was hiding in the closet and listened to Sandusky and the boy's conversation no May 13th. Did Sandusky some how know from another source?